Overcoming the Preservation Paradigm: Toward a Dialogic Approach to Rock Art and Culture

Richard A. Rogers

This essay critically analyzes how contemporary marks on rock are differentially valued through deployment of the terms graffiti and vandalism, and links those evaluations to the preservation paradigm. Vandalism is a normative category relying on presuppositions regarding the value (or lack thereof) of marks on rock. Preservation, a concept implicated in the salvage paradigm, essentializes culture and assumes that the authenticity of sites is maintained by freezing them in their (pre)historic condition, discouraging an understanding of rock art sites as spatially-grounded, asynchronous dialogues. If rock art sites are forums for such dialogues, their "essence" becomes not the culture or cultures which made the rock art, but the relationship between those cultures.

or those interested in rock art—by which is generally meant "prehistoric" or "historic" indigenous marks on rock—few Fthings are more upsetting than graffiti: the familiar array of names, dates, initial-filled hearts and often-crude images that de face indigenous rock art sites. Such graffiti are, in effect, equiva lent to many other forms of vandalism of rock art, such as bullet holes, paint, chalk, abrasions or scratches on indigenous elements. Richard A. Rogers Contemporary graffiti at rock art sites interfere with aesthetic appreciation, degrade the archaeological value of the resource, Associate Professor of and disrespect the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples. Speech Communication, Northern Arizona As a researcher in the fields of rhetoric, intercultural commu University, nication, and critical /cultural studies, I am interested in explor Flagstaff Arizona ing the contemporary status of rock art sites and motifs and in interrogating the contemporary structures which mediate their interpretation and valuation. This essay is an effort to think through, critically, the ways in which various marks on rock are differentially valued through the deployment of terms such as graffiti and vandalism, how that process of differentially valuing

American Indian Rock Art, Volume 33. Don D. Christensen and Peggy Whitehead, Editors. American Rock Art Research Association, 2007, pp. 53-66 Overcoming the Preservation Paradigm: Toward a Dialogic Approach to Rock Art and Culture

various marks is both grounded in and consti sumptions behind the labels vandalism and tutive of an ideology of preservation, and graffiti, offers an alternative lens for interpret how the ideology of preservation limits possi ing rock art sites, especially those which con bilities for understanding rock art. In ques tain both (pre)historic "rock art" and contem tioning the ideologies and practices carried porary "graffiti." Such a reinterpretation is out in the name of preserving and protecting grounded in issues central to communication rock art, however, I am not arguing for a re studies, anthropology, and archaeology: spe duction in preservation and protection efforts. cifically, an essentialist view of culture which In no way are the arguments here intended affects the theorizing and analysis of cross- to license additions or alterations to rock art cultural dynamics. Challenging the essential sites, or to encourage acts in violation of laws ist view of culture embedded in the preserva such as the Archaeological Resource Protec tion paradigm enables the development of tion Act or ethical guidelines such as those different models for understanding the com promulgated by the American Rock Art municative dynamics of rock art. Research Association (ARARA). I begin by framing the essay in relation to Vandalism and graffiti are normative, not critical examinations of cultural resource descriptive, categories relying on presupposi management (CRM) and a rhetorical under tions regarding the relative value of marks on standing of value, and then outline the preser rock. The discourse of preservation carries im vation paradigm and its attendant ideology of plicit and explicit systems of value by which cultural authenticity. With this basis, I discuss marks on rock are deemed to constitute ar a variety of rock art sites in order to identify chaeological, cultural, or historic resources the operation of systems of value regarding versus graffiti or vandalism. These systems of "prehistoric," "historic," and contemporary, value constrain and enable the ways in which as well as indigenous versus non-indigenous rock art can be understood. Specifically, rock art. Finally, I use the relationships be guided by the work of James Clifford (1987, tween these asymmetrically valued marks to 1988), I critically analyze the "preservation articulate an alternative view of rock art sites, paradigm" through the lens of the "salvage a view based in the dialogic nature of culture. paradigm" which dominated much of twenti eth-century anthropology. Preservation, a CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT concept implicated in the salvage paradigm, assumes that the authenticity of a site is main Despite its characterization as "simply the tained by "freezing" it in its (pre)historic con technical processes concerned with the man dition, a view which is contrary to the pos agement and use of material culture per sible function of rock art locales as sites for ceived by sectors of the community as signifi dialogue, as forums for cross-cultural expres cant" (Smith 2004:6), CRM is an institutional sion. The ideology which grounds and guides practice guided by ideologies and, in enacting preservation efforts perpetuates a particular those ideologies, makes them materially con set of assumptions about rock art sites, the sequential. Specifically, scholars have ana nature of their value in relation to past and lyzed not only CRM's relationship to archaeo present cultures, and the nature of "culture" logical theory and practice, but its social itself. consequences and implication in structures of Critical examination of the discourse of power. Laurajane Smith (2004), for example, rock art preservation, specifically an interro examined CRM (or CHM, cultural heritage gation of the meanings, functions, and as management) in the context of both the U.S.

54 Rogers and Australia, demonstrating how archaeo ing rock art protection with recreational ac logical expertise and CRM practices mediate tivities (Childress 2004; King 2002), research indigenous claims to cultural identity, land, into degradation due to natural processes sovereignty, and nationhood (see also the es (Dandridge and Meen 2003), techniques for says in Mathers et al. 2005). graffiti removal (Dean 1998; Pilles 1989), edu Joseph Tainter and Bonnie Bagley argue cational efforts to reduce vandalism (Pilles for the need for self-reflection by CRM regard 1989; Sanger 1992), and conservation manage ing its practices because "cultural resource ment in general (Loubser 2001). At least three managers do not merely perceive, record, and self-contained publications also address con evaluate the archaeological record. To the servation, preservation and cultural resource contrary, they apply a set of mostly management in relation to rock art (Conserva unexamined assumptions, biases, and filters tion and Protection Committee of the Ameri to privilege certain parts of the record, and to can Rock Art Research Association 1988; suppress the rest" (Tainter and Bagley Crotty 1989; Lee 1991). 2005:69). There is a need, therefore, "to expose Graffiti and vandalism are the primary fo and debate the assumptions underlying sig cus of rock art preservation. First, rock art is nificance evaluations" (Tainter and Bagley preserved by erecting a variety of barriers to 2005:59). Their position is grounded in an access, including secrecy about site locations, awareness that "cultural resource managers area or road closures, passive or psychologi do not so much discover the archaeological cal barriers, and physical barriers (e.g., record as, unconsciously but actively, they fences). Second, site monitoring, be it by the shape and produce it" (Tainter and Bagley staff of land management agencies, volunteer 2005:69; emphasis in original). Rejecting a site stewards, tour guides or others, is a key simplistic positivist epistemology, these au component in site preservation. Third, educa thors argue that cultural resources do not tion can be provided on-site either in person exist as pre-packaged containers of informa or through pamphlets or signs, at visitors' tion, but are constituted by archaeological and centers, or through schools or community CRM practices and discourses. Unconscious organizations. Fourth, signs and other forms assumptions about archaeological significance of education, while focusing on the value of and value do not only have the potential to rock art as both archaeological resources and distort understandings of cultural resources; cultural heritage, also emphasize relevant such assumptions, embedded in taken-for- laws and potential penalties for defacing rock granted ideologies, determine what will be art. Education about these laws, as well as labeled and treated as a valuable resource. direct efforts at enforcement and prosecution, Published materials relating to protecting, also contribute to site preservation. Fifth, preserving, and conserving rock art, many of graffiti removal and other forms of restoration them in previous volumes of American Indian serve, in part, to deter further vandalism. Rock Art and other ARARA publications, re Sixth, site recording preserves the "database" flect the view that CRM is primarily a techni before vandalism occurs and can be used to cal endeavor. Publications on rock art preser document the extent of vandalism when it vation in the U.S. focus on important, practical does occur. issues such as guidelines for site visitation This essay extends the critical examination (Bock and Lee 1992), guidelines and tech of CRM into rock art preservation, while add niques for site recording (Bock and Lee 1992; ing to the rock art literature by examining the Loendorf 2001; Mark and Billo 1999), balanc implications of assumptions embedded in the Overcoming the Preservation Paradigm: Toward a Dialogic Approach to Rock Art and Culture discourses and practices of rock art preserva rock art is in its status as part of their own or tion. Concerns over the infusion of contempo others' cultural heritage and/or spirituality. rary, unconscious assumptions and ideologies For others still, its value resides in its status into the interpretation of (pre)historic indig as an archaeological resource, a container of enous rock art are frequently mentioned in information about past cultures. the literature. While relatively few researchers The value of something can vary from have systematically investigated such impor person to person, social position to social tations in substantial depth, such self-reflex position, discipline to discipline, culture to ive and self-critical analyses are important for culture. In addition, value is rhetorical: it is the ongoing development of rock art interpre attributed to objects or actions through dis tation. Important examples include Hays- course, and different discourses can assign Gilpin's (2004) work on gender, Schaafsma's competing or differential values to the same (1997) discussion of the secular/sacred dis object or action. For example, interpretive tinction, Whitley's (2001) articulation of the signs such as those at Buckhorn Draw, Utah, tensions involved in using science to study explicitly assign different types and levels of the sacred, and Smith and Blundell's (2004) worthiness to additions to indigenous rock art critique of phenomenological studies of land sites: instances of (pre)historic indigenous re scape. This essay extends these and other painting or added pecking are assigned posi important works by examining how the ideol tive archaeological value, contemporary graf ogy and practice of preservation perpetuates fiti are defined as vandalism and hence certain assumptions about the nature of rock assigned negative value, and contemporary art, assumptions which are difficult to iden restorative treatments (e.g., removing, filling tify because rock art preservation is not ex in, or otherwise "disguising" graffiti) are la plicitly understood as connected to rock art beled "improvements" and assigned positive interpretation except insofar as preservation aesthetic value. Importantly, while value is enables interpretive work in general by main relative, some systems for assigning value are taining rock art sites. I argue that the dis taken as more authoritative than others. For course and practice of rock art preservation example, government agencies use specific encourages some interpretive frameworks value systems as a basis for material practices over others. This essay continues the process (such as prosecuting vandals)—hence, in of critically analyzing unexamined assump pragmatic terms value is not "simply" relative tions embedded in rock art interpretation by or subjective but is socially produced and exploring the value assigned to different contested as well as institutionally enforced. marks on rock. AUTHENTICITY AND THE VALUE PRESERVATION PARADIGM

A naive understanding of value assumes The value assigned to marks on rock is that value inheres in objects, that it is an in closely linked to the discourse and ideology herent property of things. However, as rock of preservation. The outlines of this ideology art itself makes abundantly clear, value is re are identified by Clifford (1987,1988) in his lational and variable—not an intrinsic or fixed discussion of the "salvage paradigm." The quality of a thing. For some, the value of rock salvage paradigm in American anthropology art resides in its aesthetic qualities. For some, includes the "salvage ethnography" of the its value is as a target. For others, the value of early twentieth century, museum collections,

56 Rogers and, I argue, the preservation of rock art vanishes or is forgotten) and collecting (liter sites. As Clifford (1987:121) writes, "the sal ally, insofar as rock art is generally not por vage paradigm, reflecting a desire to rescue table, though a metaphoric sense of collecting 'authenticity' out of destructive historical certainly applies), I argue that the same ideol change, is alive and well." In this paradigm, ogy operates in rock art preservation. In addi authenticity is a central concept, and "is pro tion, Clifford's replacement of "essence" with duced by removing objects from their current "conjuncture" provides an alternative frame, historical situation" (Clifford 1988:228). "Au not just for culture and identity, but for un thenticity in culture or art exists just prior to derstanding rock art sites as forums for spa the present" (Clifford 1987:122). The underly tially-grounded, asynchronous dialogues. ing assumption is that indigenous cultures When material culture is treated (i.e., consti cannot survive contact with the "modern" tuted) as an informational resource that can world; therefore, as soon after contact as pos provide insight into the culture which pro sible, these cultures must be "collected" and duced and used it, and culture itself is under thereby "preserved" in their "authentic" state, stood as a fixed and singular essence analo a state which by definition must be pre-con- gous to an organism, then the meaning and tact. This "implies a rescue of phenomena significance of material culture is also fixed from inevitable historical decay or loss. The and singular. Therefore, following Boyd et al. collection contains what 'deserves' to be kept, (2005), essentialist notions should be rejected remembered, and treasured. Artifacts and in CRM in order to allow for new interpreta customs are saved out of time" (Clifford tions. As Lay ton and Thomas (2001) argue, 1988:231). preservation is intimately linked to the notion This paradigm is predicated on a particu of an archive, of material culture as an ar lar understanding of culture: "Expectations of chaeological resource. Questioning the essen- wholeness, continuity, and essence have long tialism embedded in dominant Western con been built into the linked Western ideas of ceptions of culture—the notion of (especially culture and art" (Clifford 1988:233). Culture is "primitive") cultures as pure, clearly bounded reified, viewed metaphorically as an organ and organic—destabilizes the foundation of ism that cannot survive radical environmental the "authenticity" of cultural resources. While shifts, loss and/or replacement of substantial some discussions (e.g. Smith 2004) have fo elements, or radical hybridization. "The cul cused on the important differences between ture concept accommodates internal diversity cultural resources and cultural heritage, both and an 'organic' division of roles but not labels perpetuate the essentialist view of cul sharp contradictions, mutations, or emer ture embedded in the discourse and practice gences" (Clifford 1988:338). Fragmentation of rock art preservation. and disjuncture are incompatible with this view of culture, their presence signifying the VALUING MARKS ON ROCK death of the organism (culture). As an alterna tive, Clifford (1988:11) argues that "identity is The lines drawn in the preservation of conjunctival, not essential." Identity and cul archaeological resources are ideological and ture are not discrete things, but relationships, based in systems of value. Systems for assign intersections. ing value to various forms of expression on While rock art preservation differs from rock, in operating from an essentialist view of salvage ethnography (insofar as rock art itself culture, deny value to post-contact and non- can persist long after the originating culture indigenous marks at rock art sites generally Overcoming the Preservation Paradigm: Toward a Dialogic Approach to Rock Art and Culture regardless of who made them or with what (Pre)Historic Indigenous and Historic intent. Through this discussion, I hope to Non-Indigenous Marks clarify the (potentially) conjunctural quality of rock art sites as locales for dialogues between Disjunctions between the ideology behind multiple cultures and different eras. To do so, the preservation paradigm and the practice of I move through a crude typology of rock art CRM in legal and bureaucratic contexts can dialogues, places where marks from different be illustrated through the examination of sites times coexist and interact. Under each type of which exemplify the second type of rock art dialogue, I discuss a number of rock art sites dialogue, involving both (pre)historic indig and motifs for illustration. I do not advance enous elements and historic, non-indigenous my interpretations of these sites and motifs as elements. One such site is on the west side of definitive; their purpose is heuristic, thinking Death Valley National Park (DVNP). In the through the implications and possibilities of transition zone between a small mountain valuations of diverse marks on rock. range and a Joshua tree-covered flat, several rock outcrops along a wash are peppered "Prehistoric" Indigenous Marks from with indigenous, presumably "prehistoric" Different Time Periods petroglyphs. Images of mountain sheep pre dominate. A search of other canyons and suit Many indigenous rock art sites are con able rock outcrops in the immediate vicinity structions of multiple points in time. Rock art failed to reveal additional rock art—i.e., the motifs that interact with existing imagery are petroglyphs appear to be localized. This could common, the most obvious case being be for a number of reasons: perhaps this was superpositioning, wherein newer motifs are a favored travel route for those groups who placed, in whole or part, over motifs which, made the rock art, perhaps the wash was used due to relative patination or other factors, are by game animals (and therefore hunters), per assumed to be older. The first type of rock art haps a small seep was the only water in the dialogue, therefore, is the co-existence of mul vicinity, perhaps there were nearby habitation tiple elements from different points in time, areas, and/or perhaps it was selected as a site but all elements are presumably "prehistoric" for ritual activity. or perhaps historic but still indigenous in ori As with many other rock art sites in DVNP gin. Superpositioning is the "strongest" form and elsewhere, there are historic signatures in of this general case insofar as the newer ele close proximity to indigenous motifs. A num ments directly "degrade" or "interfere" with ber of names and initials are concentrated the older ones in ways not dissimilar to some near a possible seep, with dates including acts of contemporary graffiti and vandalism. 1905,1907, 1908,1916,1947 and 1994 (some of However, there is no theme of loss in the rock these are superimposed on or occur on the art literature regarding superpositioning— same rock surface as indigenous petroglyphs). such cases are treated as rich sources of data A little further up the wash, just beyond a for relative dating and the interaction of mul concentrated area of indigenous rock art, is tiple cultures or rock art styles. This is largely another name, Bill Key, dated 1895 and ac consistent with the preservation paradigm in companied by a well-made mountain sheep sofar as the superimposed elements are indig motif (clearly different in style from the indig enous and "prehistoric" or early in the "his enous sheep motifs). The second obvious oc toric" period. currence of contemporary graffiti (i.e., less

38 Rogers than 50 years old) in the area is just below this Marks on rock seem to invite the place historic sheep motif, separated from it by a ment of more marks (Silver 1989). A maxim of crack in the rock: the initials "TG" dated graffiti prevention—whether in urban sites or [19]95. The 1995 inscription is close to the at rock art sites—is that the best way to stop 1895 signature and motif, but not to any (vis more graffiti is to remove any graffiti as soon ible) indigenous rock art, so it directly vio as possible (Dean 1998; Lee 1991). One way lates an historic, Euro-American panel, not an to interpret this is that graffiti removal (more indigenous, (pre)historic one. Nevertheless, directly, the actual or apparent lack of graffiti) setting aside matters of degree, both the his sends the "message" that a site has value and toric and the contemporary signatures are should be respected, whereas the presence of violations of the integrity of the indigenous graffiti sends the "message" that a site is not rock art. However, as historic resources, the valued. However, there is a broader, less 1895-1916 (and even the 1947) "graffiti" in loaded interpretation of this phenomenon: DVNP could be granted the same protection marks invite marks, statements invite response. as the prehistoric, indigenous rock art in the That is, setting aside particular judgments same area or even on the same rock (Lee 1991; about the value of one mark on rock versus Price 1989). another type of mark on rock, the motivation Given all of the wonderful rock media in for placing marks where others have been the immediate and broader vicinity of the placed is dialogue (which can include both DVNP site, why has this particular area be hostile and friendly relations between the come a concentration for historic signatures? utterances which make up that dialogue). As If the indigenous choice of this locale was Silver (1989:12) states, "When one really stud formed by environmental factors—natural ies the graffiti [at rock art sites], one finds that travel routes, water sources and / or game ac people start to answer each other, just as they tivity—then the presence of non-indigenous do in public restrooms." The result of this on historic peoples in the same area can be simi going set of responses to existing inscriptions larly explained. But the historic signatures is a fascinating, mysterious, and localized dia were not made casually or in passing. Even logue, traces of conversation over time be with modern, metal tools, such as a miner's tween multiple groups occupying the same hand pick, substantial time and effort was place. Dialogues of this type are somewhat put into the 1895,1907 and 1908 signatures. unique in that, like face-to-face conversation, Whether these historic marks were made in the interlocutors must occupy the same physi conscious and specific response to the indig cal space but unlike face-to-face conversation, enous marks is unknown, but it seems clear not at the same time. that these inscriptions were produced, broadly speaking, in response to the indig (Pre)Historic Indigenous Marks and enous inscriptions. I would argue that the ear Contemporary Non-Indigenous Marks liest historic marks (the 1895 signature and sheep) might have never been made in this This notion of place-bound (spatially but place if it were not for the (pre)historic rock not temporally-grounded) dialogues may be art. This interpretation is supported by the more palatable to some when confined to the producer's choice to peck a mountain sheep second type, in which indigenous and non- motif, as they are by far the most frequent indigenous but historic elements occur to motif at the site (where there are at least 150 gether at a rock art site. The third type, how mountain sheep petroglyphs). ever, is an equally valid case of such a Overcoming the Preservation Paradigm: Toward a Dialogic Approach to Rock Art and Culture dialogue: contemporary additions to lightly but broadly scratched into the patina (pre)historic indigenous rock art sites. Here, just above an indigenous element, geometric the arbitrariness of the relevant laws, or their in design, that is itself possibly an echo of ce underlying logics, comes into play. Graffiti of ramic or textile designs. This mark received a certain age becomes "historic" and its (per local and statewide media coverage, where it ceived/ascribed) value changes, at least in is depicted as one of many acts of vandalism institutional CRM terms. However, while carried out by a group of partying teens who the specific line is arbitrary, the general con have subsequently plead guilty to their of cept driving it is grounded in a system fenses. Like many other modern graffiti, this whereby increasing value adheres to material mark appears to stress personal identity traces as they recede in time from the present. (Murray 2004). Close attention to the "LB," They become "historic resources" rather than however, shows that its general form—the "vandalism." How are such lines enacted by "B" is nestled inside the "L" and is made with those engaged in rock art preservation and two triangles, not two semi-circles—roughly restoration? One guideline is the "50 year imitates the indigenous geometric design rule," as reflected in Pilles's (1989) discussion below it. Whether or not this was a conscious of graffiti removal at some rock art sites near design, it is a kind of responsiveness, if for no Sedona, Arizona, in which everything post- other reason than that the technique used to 1940 was removed, everything pre-1920 was produce the graffito encourages angular over left untouched, and marks from 1920-1940 round shapes. Importantly, even if the ele were expunged on a case-by-case basis. ment was made without destructive intent, The coexistence of contemporary and as a non-hostile response to the indigenous (pre)historic, indigenous marks is the para mark, it still constitutes destruction of the re digm case of graffiti as vandalism, the cir source values of the panel and merits nega cumstance which causes the greatest concern tive moral judgment and possibly legal action. among those interested in rock art preserva However, what is potentially missed by tion and which garners the most press atten dismissing this mark as simply or only van tion. While I do not advocate the addition of dalism, or as the destructive act of a drunken contemporary marks to rock art sites, my ar and ignorant teen, is the way in which ele gument is that it is myopic to dismiss or de ments at rock art sites call forth responses value these marks as simply or only vandal from others, and in doing so shape those ism. Instead, there are cases in which, like the responses. Rock art is a relatively unique 1895 signature and its attendant sheep in medium: like writing, for example, it is time- DVNP, post-contact marks are clearly made binding but, unlike writing on portable mate in response to indigenous marks, perpetuat rials (such as paper), not space-binding. It is, ing a dialogue that is not necessarily radically in a sense, the opposite of many electronic dissimilar to that involved in cases of indig media, such as the telephone, which allow enous superpositioning. Careful examination for synchronous conversation across distances of contemporary graffiti can reveal something (space-binding but not time-binding). Rock about the nature of cross-cultural dialogue at art sites, therefore, can be understood as sites rock art sites. for dialogue between people separated by A mark recently added to the Land Hill days, years, centuries, or even millennia, but petroglyph area near St. George, Utah, dem the turns in those dialogues all occur in the onstrates one form of "responsiveness" to in same place. Rock art sites are locations for digenous elements. The initials "LB" were dialogues between peoples and cultures

60 Rogers separated by time. If we understand rock art The "Disney panel" at Joshua Tree Na locales as sites for such ongoing dialogues, tional Park can help clarify this distinction. their "essence" becomes not the culture or The information in circulation about this cultures which made the rock art, but the rela panel varies in many of the details, but the tionships between these marks, peoples, cul best information I have obtained indicates tures, and eras. This is not simply an argu that in the late 1950s this cave-like rock for ment that rock art sites can "contain" infor mation containing indigenous rock art was mation about more than one culture—I am "enhanced" by adding both modern petro suggesting that an important, even defining, glyphs and bright, modern paints for use in a trait of some rock art sites may be that they film being shot in the area (Daniel McCarthy, are both a record of, and an ongoing site for, personal communication 2006). Directed by dialogues, and hence relationships, between Walter Perkins, Chico the Misunderstood Coyote cultures. The preservation paradigm, focused was subsequently aired on Walt Disney's Won on notions such as purity, essence, wholeness derful World of Color in 1961 and was released and continuity, both guides and is perpetu theatrically outside the U.S. in 1962 (MSN ated by efforts at rock art preservation, and Movies 2006). Although not entirely consis works against a full recognition and positive tent with the information otherwise available valuation of the dialogic/relational quality of about this panel (i.e., whether the petroglyphs rock art sites as well as cultures themselves. absent the paint were indigenous or modern), As Clifford (1988), Bakhtin (1981) and many the official interpretive sign at the site states others have argued, both individuals and cul that the petroglyphs "have been traced over tures come into being in dialogue with others, with paint. This type of vandalism prevents by borrowing from and adapting the cultural others from seeing the petroglyphs in their forms of others, by both responding to and original form. Please help us by reporting being responded to. The possibilities of rock any vandalism you observe." art interpretation shift when we move from In spite of inconsistent information re what does this element or panel from X culture garding the extent and nature of the indig mean? to what were (and are) the relationships enous versus contemporary motifs at this site, among the peoples and cultures who engaged in as well as the Park Service's role in and reac such a place-bound, long-term dialogue? tion to the additions, all accounts agree that Another effort to take graffiti seriously is there was some indigenous rock art at the site Murray's (2004) essay "Marking Places." In before it was altered for the film. Any such arguing for valuing contemporary marks as a use of cultural resources and cultural heritage form of cultural expression and marking of evidences enormous disrespect for Native the landscape, Murray points out that today's Americans. But it is a response and, therefore, graffiti is tomorrow's archaeological record. dialogue (dialogue is not always warm and However, my point is not only that contem fuzzy). This site could be seen as a valuable porary marks at rock art sites will become historic resource (the defacement is approach tomorrow's rock art. The relationships among ing 50 years old, after all) that records some and between various marks are not only valu thing about the culture which produced it, in able cultural resources, but suggest a different cluding attitudes toward indigenous cultures way of looking at cultures: not as slowly- and their material traces (e.g., rock art). changing, integrated, organic wholes, but as This panel is not simply a record of two defined by their intersections and relation or more cultures who marked the same place ships, by conjuncture and dialogue. in different ways for different reasons. It is a Overcoming the Preservation Paradigm: Toward a Dialogic Approach to Rock Art and Culture place-bound dialogue between these groups. the obliteration of sexual and serpent imagery This site is a material record of the interaction by Christians (Native or otherwise), and the between multiple cultures: at a minimum, the intentional obliteration of specific images by culture(s) which produced the indigenous or at the instruction of a local, Native healer. rock art and the culture which added to and / Without assuming that any of these or other or painted them over for the purposes of pro explanations are correct or incorrect (none ducing a film. Is that record of cultural inter are presented publicly as definitive or con action, and of the attitudes of one culture to firmed), the case provides the opportunity to wards the material traces of another, a identify and discuss other forms of dialogue, resource of lower value than a "pristine" (in in this case not by Westerners but by mem digenous only) site? More importantly, how bers of indigenous groups, some or all of are these cultures interrelated, made interde whose cultural ancestors produced rock art at pendent by this ongoing exchange of marks? Inscription Point. As with the other cases dis Clearly, the contemporary marks demonstrate cussed here, however, my purpose is to use a dependence on others' marks, of the use of the site as a heuristic, not to make definitive others' marks to define, shape, and perpetu claims about specific marks. ate one's own culture and /or identity—a cen In the eyes of many, these acts clearly con tral quality of dialogue (Bakhtin 1981). stitute vandalism. Weaver et al. (2001:149) de scribe the acts as "scratching, abrading or Contemporary Indigenous Marks and chiseling out specific motifs in an attempt to (Pre)Historic Indigenous Marks completely destroy the images," an attribu tion of intent consistent with the dictionary A fourth type of rock art dialogue is con definition of vandalism but not necessarily a temporary indigenous additions to (prehis conclusion warranted by the physical evi toric sites: acts which would be (if not for the dence itself or entirely consistent with some Native status of their makers) or are (depend of the stories circulating about the nature and ing on one's point of view) considered acts of intent of these acts. These acts are clearly ut vandalism (a case with additional legal com terances in an ongoing dialogue both within plexities, e.g., the American Indian Religious and between the various indigenous groups Freedom Act of 1978). Inscription Point, on who have (and possibly continue to) produce the Navajo Nation, provides an example, as rock art at Inscription Point. As Weaver et al. documented by Weaver et al. (2001). Here, in (2001:141) conclude, the marks at Inscription addition to contemporary graffiti, several in Point have been made for at least 2,000 years dividual petroglyphs have been abraded and by at least three cultural groups. obliterated, including masks and copulation In particular, while abrasions have com scenes (although not all masks and copulation pletely obscured several motifs (masks and scenes at the site have been so erased). Most copulation scenes), the chiseled serpent is a visibly, a large serpent image has been altered potentially different story. The serpent image, with a metal chisel or similar instrument. while heavily chiseled and missing some of Various possibilities suggested in published its previous detail, retains its basic shape and literature (Bock 1989; Weaver et al. 2001) as outline, as evidenced in Mark and Billo's well as by staff of nearby Wupatki National (1999) before and after photographs. Weaver Monument and local rock art avocationalists et al. (2001:149) describe the large serpent as include the obliteration of ancestral Puebloan having "been chiseled out of the rock" and motifs by non-Puebloan Native Americans, include this act under the umbrella of "recent

62 Rogers vandalism and destruction of rock art" at In These relationships are a part of the dy scription Point. However, cases of super- namics involved in rock art, but the discourses positioning as well as the re-pecking of and practices of preservation divert attention petroglyphs or repainting of pictographs away from the potential centrality of those re have been identified at many (pre)historic lationships to both rock art sites and the cul rock art sites, and the traces of these acts are tures involved. A clear example of how an treated by researchers as valuable aspects of essentialist, not conjunctural, view of culture the archaeological record. Indeed, repetitive operates in evaluating rock art vandalism is pecking has created large holes in many found in the following comment made during petroglyphs, as in the case of a Puebloan fe a panel discussion of rock art protection in male anthropomorph and many other motifs relation to the issue of contemporary Native at Chevelon Steps, Arizona (Kolber 2000), peoples making marks at rock art sites: "I holes which could also be seen as "destroy would have to look at it in terms of what in ing" or at least "degrading" the original digenous group was there and whether these motifs. Again, this is a valuable record of are the descendants of that particular group cultural practices, and in some cases may who are doing it in terms of some sort of a involve the actions of more than one culture. ritual associated with their traditional reli These acts, in one sense, also "destroy" gion.... But if they're doing it to some other (pre)historic motifs but are positively valued, descendants' rock art, then I think they're whereas the chiseling of the serpent image basically vandalizing it" (Ritter in Bock at Inscription Point is not presented as a case 1989:84). However, if done (prehistorically, of re-pecking or other form of (destructive) acts of superpositioning, re-pecking and the alteration—it is simply vandalism, pure like are cast positively in terms of their value destruction. as a resource, a repository of knowledge— Dialogues can be conflictual as well as even if the original intent may have been hos harmonious. In the cases of (pre)historic tile or destructive. superpositioning, repecking, and repainting found elsewhere, such acts may have been in CONCLUSION harmony or hostility with the original glyph; they may have been appropriations with ma In preserving traces of cultures past, what levolent, benevolent, or neutral motives. constitutes preservation depends on how cul From the traces on rock alone, I am not ture is understood. If culture is viewed as an confident we can determine the nature of the essence, a thing whose purity is endangered relationship between the original and the im by interaction with other (Western, modern) posed marks, their meanings, and their affili cultures, then efforts to "freeze" sites in their ated cultures. But the existence of the dia current condition "make sense." That is, the logue seems clear. A focus on preservation, view of culture embedded in the preservation grounded in a model of cultural essence, di paradigm is one of the "conditions of possibil verts attention (or at least positive valuation) ity" (Foucault 1972) for the discourses and ac away from these dialogues, at least as they tions of rock art preservation. If, on the other have recently occurred and will continue to hand, culture is viewed as conjunctural, de occur in the future, and in doing so may fined by the relations between various groups blind us to dialogic or relational, as opposed and world views, then culture's "essence" to essential or self-contained, qualities of exists in the dialogues within and between rock art. cultures. Rock art sites are often forums for Overcoming the Preservation Paradigm: Toivard a Dialogic Approach to Rock Art and Culture dialogues between cultures separated by We should be explicit and conscious about years, centuries, and even millennia. As with why we want to protect and preserve rock individuals, the identities and qualities of cul art, and at the same time reflect on how the tures are constituted in dialogue with others very same assumptions that lead us to de (Bakhtin 1981). In "preserving" rock art sites, nounce graffiti may interfere with our ability the traces of these past dialogues are main to make sense of a variety of rock art's dimen tained, but are at the same time transformed sions and functions. into something which should not be engaged in their place. While this retains the traces of Acknowledgments. I am deeply indebted the (pre)historic dialogue, it encourages a to Joseph Wilhelm not only for his company view of a single rock art motif, panel, site, or while visiting many rock art sites, but for style as a container of information about a years of conversations in which many of the culture as opposed to traces of the relations ideas in this paper were birthed. I, however, and interactions between cultures—relations am responsible for errors in fact, interpreta and interactions that are part of constituting tion, and judgment. those very cultures. Rock art is valued for the knowledge it REFERENCES CITED can provide, the questions it can help answer, about (pre)historic cultures. Rock art is thus Bakhtin, M. M. constituted by the discourse of the preserva 1981 The Dialogic Imagination. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. University of tion paradigm as a container of knowledge to Texas Press, Austin. be preserved until it can be "mined" by ex perts, implicitly encouraging rock art to be Bock, A. J., and Georgia Lee 1992 Footsteps to Destruction: A Guide for Visiting interpreted in one set of ways as opposed to and / or Recording Rock Art Sites. In American others. In addition to shedding light on em Indian Rock Art, Vol. 18, edited by Frank G. Bock, bedded assumptions and thereby opening pp. 23-26. American Rock Art Research Associa tion, San Miguel, California. up possibilities for interpretation within rock art studies by reframing the significance of Bock, Frank (moderator) rock art as part of a relationship rather than a 1989 Conservation and Protection Symposium thing, working with the specificity of rock art Panel Discussion. In Preserving Our Rock Art Heri tage: Proceedings from the Symposium on Rock Art as a relatively unique genre of discourse can Conservation and Protection, Occasional Paper 1, also help develop conjunctural models of edited by Helen K. Crotty, pp. 75-86. American culture. Rock Art Research Association, San Miguel, California. The addition of contemporary graffiti to indigenous rock art sites is vandalism. But its Boyd, W. E., Maria M. Cotter, Jane Gardiner, and Gai illegality, its violation of the ethical codes of Taylor 2005 "Rigidity and a changing order...disorder, organizations like ARARA, and its interfer degeneracy and daemonic repetition": Fluidity of ence with what we each value about rock art Cultural Values and Cultural Heritage Manage sites should not lead us to see it only as a de ment. In Heritage of Value, Archaeology of Renown: traction from the knowledge to be gained Reshaping Archaeological Assessment and Significance, edited by Clay Mathers, Timothy Darvill, and from rock art. A careful examination of con Barbara }. Little, pp. 89-113. University Press of temporary marks added to rock art sites can Florida, Gainesville. teach us something about the nature of rock Childress, Jane P. art as a medium, about cross-cultural dia 2004 Rock Art and Rock Crawling in Central logue and about the very nature of culture. Arizona. In American Indian Rock Art, Vol. 30, edited by Joseph T. O'Connor, pp. 103-110. Ameri can Rock Art Research Association, Tucson, Arizona.

64 Rogers

Clifford, James Layton, Robert, and Julian Thomas 1987 Of Other Peoples: Beyond the "Salvage Para 2001 Introduction: The Destruction and Conserva digm." In Discussions in Contemporary Culture, tion of Cultural Property. In Destruction and Conser edited by Hal Foster, pp. 121-130. Bay Press, vation of Cultural Property, edited by Robert Layton, Seattle, Washington. Peter G. Stone, and Julian Thomas, pp. 1-21. 1988 The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Routledge, New York. Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Lee, Georgia 1991 Rock Art and Cultural Resource Management. Conservation and Protection Committee of the Ameri Wormwood Press, Calabasas, California. can Rock Art Research Association. 1988 Conservation Guidelines of the American Rock Art Loendorf, Larry Research Association. American Rock Art Research 2001 Rock Art Recording. In Handbook of Rock Art Association, San Miguel, California. Research, edited by David S. Whitley, pp. 55-79. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Crotty, Helen K. (editor) 1989 Preserving Our Rock Art Heritage: Proceedings Loubser, Johannes from the Symposium on Rock Art Conservation and 2001 Management Planning for Conservation. In Protection. Occasional Paper 1. American Rock Art Handbook of Rock Art Research, edited by David S. Research Association, San Miguel, California. Whitley, pp. 80-115. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Dandridge, Debra E., and James K. Meen 2003 The Degradation of Rock Art by Lichen Pro Mark, Robert, and Evelyn Billo cesses. In American Indian Rock Art, Vol. 29, edited 1999 A Stitch in Time: Digital Panoramas and by Alanah Woody and Joseph T. O'Connor, pp. Mosaics. In American Indian Rock Art, Vol. 25, 43-52. American Rock Art Research Association, edited by Steven M. Freers, pp. 155-168. American Tucson, Arizona. Rock Art Research Association, Tucson, Arizona.

Dean, J. Claire Mathers, Clay, Timothy Darvill, and Barbara J. Little 1998 Grappling with Graffiti at Petroglyph National (editors) Monument. In American Indian Rock Art, Vol. 22, 2005 Heritage of Value, Archaeology of Renown: edited by Steven M. Freers, pp. 111-117. American Reshaping Archaeological Assessment and Significance. Rock Art Research Association, Tucson, Arizona. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Foucault, Michel. MSN Movies 1972 The Archaeology of Knowledge & The Discourse on 2006 Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color: Language. Translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith. Chico, the Misunderstood Coyote. Electronic docu Pantheon, New York. ment, http:/ /movies.msn.com/movies/ movie.aspx?m=548237, accessed March 2, 2006. Hays-Gilpin, Kelley A. 2004 Ambiguous Images: Gender and Rock Art. Murray, William Breen AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California. 2004 Marking Places: Graffiti, Inscriptions, and Rock Art in Northeast Mexico (and Elsewhere). In King, Larry American Indian Rock Art, Vol. 30, edited by Joseph 2002 Conservation and Management Concerns in T. O'Connor, pp. 129-136. American Rock Art the Development of Rock Climbing Areas at Three Research Association, Tucson, Arizona. Central Oregon Pictograph Sites. In American In dian Rock Art, Vol. 28, edited by Alanah Woody, Pilles, Peter J. pp. 63-72. American Rock Art Research Associa 1989 Public Education and the Management of Rock tion, Tucson, Arizona. Art Sites on the Coconino National Forest. In Pre serving Our Rock Art Heritage: Proceedings from the Kolber, Jane Symposium on Rock Art Conservation and Protection, 2000 Variations of Human Figures through Time Occasional Paper 1, edited by Helen K. Crotty, pp. and Space at Baird's Chevelon Steps. In 2999 Inter 23-34. American Rock Art Research Association, national Rock Art Congress Proceedings, Vol. 1, edited San Miguel, California. by Peggy Whitehead and Lawrence Loendorf, pp. 67-74. American Rock Art Research Association, Tucson, Arizona.

65 Overcoming the Preservation Paradigm: Toward a Dialogic Approach to Rock Art and Culture

Price, Nicholas Stanley. Smith, Laurajane 1989 What Makes a Conservation Treatment 2004 Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Acceptable or Not? In Preserving Our Rock Art Heri Heritage. Routledge, New York. tage: Proceedings from the Symposium on Rock Art Conservation and Protection, Occasional Paper 1, Tainter, Joseph A., and Bonnie Bagley edited by Helen K. Crotty, pp. 17-22. American 2005 Shaping and Suppressing the Archaeological Rock Art Research Association, San Miguel, Record: Significance in American Cultural Re California. source Management. In Heritage of Value, Archaeol ogy of Renown: Reshaping Archaeological Assessment Sanger, Kay Kenady and Significance, edited by Clay Mathers, Timothy 1992 Making Our Work in Rock Art Count. In Darvill, and Barbara J. Little, pp. 58-73. University American Indian Rock Art, Vol. 18, edited by Press of Florida, Gainesville. Frank G. Bock, pp. 19-22. American Rock Art Research Association, San Miguel, California. Weaver, Donald E., Robert Mark, and Evelyn Billo 2001 Inscription Point: Too Little Too Late? In Schaafsma, Polly American Indian Rock Art, Vol. 27, edited by Steven 1997 Rock Art, World Views, and Contemporary M. Freers and Alanah Woody, pp. 137-150. Ameri Issues. In Rock Art as Visual Ecology, IRAC Proceed can Rock Art Research Association, Tucson, Ari ings, Volume 1, edited by Paul Faulstich, pp. 7-20. zona. American Rock Art Research Association, San Miguel, California. Whitley, David S. 2001 Science and the Sacred: Interpretive Theory in Silver, Constance U.S. Rock Art Research. In Theoretical Perspectives in 1989 Rock Art Conservation in the United States: Rock Art Research, edited by Knut Helskog, pp. 124- Wish or Reality? In Preserving Our Rock Art Heri 151. Institute for Comparative Research in Human tage: Proceedings from the Symposium on Rock Art Culture, Oslo, Norway. Conservation and Protection, Occasional Paper 1, edited by Helen K. Crotty, pp. 3-15. American Rock Art Research Association, San Miguel, California.

Smith, Benjamin W., and Geoffrey Blundell 2004 Dangerous Ground: A Critique of Landscape in Rock-Art Studies. In Pictures in Place: the Figured Landscapes of Rock-Art, edited by Christopher Chippindale and George Nash, pp. 239-262. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.